Newness to the brain's owner is what matters, especially if our concern is students/learners in schools and early childhood settings. Truly original thought is very rare indeed - but we don't need everyone doing that :)
I agree with you for school settings. Frequently it’s aligned with big C creativity in entrepreneurship and it’s kind of fetishised which is unhelpful.
Creative thinking and critical thinking are two very different modes of cognition taking place in different parts of the brain. They cannot be defined simultaneously.
Do you think people over reach when they image what teaching creativity produces? The best available everyday examples of creativity are the successful novel products such as the iPhone or Nobel winning science or successful books, films or music.
These all come from people who have spent a lot more time dedicated to one topic than most teenagers.
What would be the smallest thing a student could produce that required creativity? Could a single sentence show creativity or a paragraph?
In mathematics the problems used in competitions might be a small scale example. They are chosen so that they require some insight to do either quickly or well and so that it is unlikely the student has seen the same problem before. There is also often scope for some qualitative view of the answer such as a significantly shorter right answer being more pleasing.
I do share the view that creativity is not transferable but consider that once attaining some creative skill in one area a student would appreciate the satisfaction of mastery and what it takes and looks like if they want to develop it in other areas. So it definitely seems worth teaching it within some areas the students are studying.
I agree - from experience! - that the satisfaction DOES motivate across disciplinary lines. I also like your incisive question about scales of creativity. There is mini C and little C creativity (in addition to big C). Mini C is important to encourage in schools because it means learning!
Ha! I replied before I read this I think the four c’s are useful to be aware of but I’m not sure learning itself is creativity. Perhaps a problem-solving has a small c element but perhaps it is just learning.
Yes and when learners make connections and build schemata THEMSELVES (mini C) this should be celebrated as great learning AND a precursor to other levels of C. It's a way of learning that as teachers we should encourage and reinforce - while always providing schematic frameworks or conceptual scaffolding as advance organisers (not just 'explore, kids, and work it all out for yourselves!').
Yes there are four c’s of creativity and I think the mini c is probably not worth distinguishing.
I have worked with many risk averse students so yes I think encouraging creativity and that mindset could have good transfer that might lead to greater independent thinking across the board.
In the 4 c model the difference between the options seems to be the value others place on the results. The process for the creator seems to be the same. That is combine ideas you have to form something you were not aware of before.
If small or micro c creativity looks like problem solving perhaps that is because they are just different words for the same thing.
Nonsense question: ‘What creativity skills have you learned that you wanted to pass on, which ones do you use?' Question assumes creativity is the same kind of skill as being able to play a Jimi Hendrix solo or mend a pair of boots. It is not. Creativity like courage is a meta skill. Completely different genus. The question is a 'when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife? trap.
Disagree with both of you here. Do you think creativity or courage as an ability can be improved? That is is it possible for a person’s ability to be creative or courageous improvable?
If you think not and it is purely a matter of innate ability then say so.
But if it can be improved the next question is can someone help someone foster that improvement?
If you think so but you want to call what they do something other than teaching, maybe coaching or fostering are words you prefer say so or gives us the word you w. But to a large extent you are just arguing semantics.
Perhaps that is helpful. But I think of teaching a child to ride a bike. It is not a matter of explaining how to lean and push seemingly the wrong way to go around a corner at speed. It is done better by demonstrating and simple exercises that build up the skills needed. But everyone still describes what is going on as teaching a child to ride a bike. There is no good reason to ask everyone to change what a word means because you want to use only a narrow definition.
Great working-through of ideas. Stan I think was bang on: it's largely arguing semantics. How do you (or I) DEFINE teaching? Learning? Creativity? And is creativity the same as creative thinking? And is that even the same as creative thinking practices - which are my interest/focus. I think there's a lot definition assumption going on, using particular terms but actually talking about different things. For clarity, I think Sweller's question was intended as a gotcha set-up but I don't know for sure that it wasn't shed in a spirit of open minded curiosity and respect. What I am sure of is that there are thinking-practices that help to achieve the end-point outcomes of informed, reasoned, constructive, helpful arguments, strategies and solutions. And I'd like teachers to be better supported to teach those practices. I don't think this objective is contentious, but semantics complicate it, for sure.
Yes. I think it is good to discuss semantics but take the view when someone explains what they mean by a term we should except that is what they mean. We might suggest using a very different term than common usage is unhelpful but the real issue is whatever they do mean.
I take Sweller’s question to be a gotcha for people who haven’t really thought about what they mean.
I think it is quite a fair question to bring that out in the open. For people who have thought about it the answer would quickly move the discussion from semantics to something interesting.
Great provocation, Rebecca. I think yes, critical and creative thinking practices can be taught and fostered - and should be... developmentally appropriately, and knowledge-based, from a young age.
Great job, thank you!! Lots to ponder!!
Why original? Nothing is. CCT is connecting dots, a crossword puzzle. No originality required.
Hi Hugh,
What separates it from plain old thinking or problem-solving?
Newness to the brain's owner is what matters, especially if our concern is students/learners in schools and early childhood settings. Truly original thought is very rare indeed - but we don't need everyone doing that :)
I agree with you for school settings. Frequently it’s aligned with big C creativity in entrepreneurship and it’s kind of fetishised which is unhelpful.
Yes! Annoying.
Plain old thinking: make a grocery list.
Problem solving: 469 / 18 long division.
Critical thinking: smells like the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
Creative thinking: what if I add shawarma spice to the BBQ sauce?
Of course most cognitive work is a combo and bouncing between nucleus acumbens, amygdala, pre-frontal cortex and cingulate gyrus.
Creative thinking and critical thinking are two very different modes of cognition taking place in different parts of the brain. They cannot be defined simultaneously.
Do you think people over reach when they image what teaching creativity produces? The best available everyday examples of creativity are the successful novel products such as the iPhone or Nobel winning science or successful books, films or music.
These all come from people who have spent a lot more time dedicated to one topic than most teenagers.
What would be the smallest thing a student could produce that required creativity? Could a single sentence show creativity or a paragraph?
In mathematics the problems used in competitions might be a small scale example. They are chosen so that they require some insight to do either quickly or well and so that it is unlikely the student has seen the same problem before. There is also often scope for some qualitative view of the answer such as a significantly shorter right answer being more pleasing.
I do share the view that creativity is not transferable but consider that once attaining some creative skill in one area a student would appreciate the satisfaction of mastery and what it takes and looks like if they want to develop it in other areas. So it definitely seems worth teaching it within some areas the students are studying.
I agree - from experience! - that the satisfaction DOES motivate across disciplinary lines. I also like your incisive question about scales of creativity. There is mini C and little C creativity (in addition to big C). Mini C is important to encourage in schools because it means learning!
Ha! I replied before I read this I think the four c’s are useful to be aware of but I’m not sure learning itself is creativity. Perhaps a problem-solving has a small c element but perhaps it is just learning.
Yes and when learners make connections and build schemata THEMSELVES (mini C) this should be celebrated as great learning AND a precursor to other levels of C. It's a way of learning that as teachers we should encourage and reinforce - while always providing schematic frameworks or conceptual scaffolding as advance organisers (not just 'explore, kids, and work it all out for yourselves!').
Yes there are four c’s of creativity and I think the mini c is probably not worth distinguishing.
I have worked with many risk averse students so yes I think encouraging creativity and that mindset could have good transfer that might lead to greater independent thinking across the board.
(I disagree. I think mini C should be a MAJOR focus of teachers.)
In the 4 c model the difference between the options seems to be the value others place on the results. The process for the creator seems to be the same. That is combine ideas you have to form something you were not aware of before.
If small or micro c creativity looks like problem solving perhaps that is because they are just different words for the same thing.
Nonsense question: ‘What creativity skills have you learned that you wanted to pass on, which ones do you use?' Question assumes creativity is the same kind of skill as being able to play a Jimi Hendrix solo or mend a pair of boots. It is not. Creativity like courage is a meta skill. Completely different genus. The question is a 'when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife? trap.
I thought the same. Not in words so colourful, though :) Didn't seem to be a question coming from an open minded standpoint. Irony.
Disagree with both of you here. Do you think creativity or courage as an ability can be improved? That is is it possible for a person’s ability to be creative or courageous improvable?
If you think not and it is purely a matter of innate ability then say so.
But if it can be improved the next question is can someone help someone foster that improvement?
If you think so but you want to call what they do something other than teaching, maybe coaching or fostering are words you prefer say so or gives us the word you w. But to a large extent you are just arguing semantics.
Perhaps that is helpful. But I think of teaching a child to ride a bike. It is not a matter of explaining how to lean and push seemingly the wrong way to go around a corner at speed. It is done better by demonstrating and simple exercises that build up the skills needed. But everyone still describes what is going on as teaching a child to ride a bike. There is no good reason to ask everyone to change what a word means because you want to use only a narrow definition.
Hi Stan, this is my space for working through my ideas. Thanks for engaging in robust debate.
Great working-through of ideas. Stan I think was bang on: it's largely arguing semantics. How do you (or I) DEFINE teaching? Learning? Creativity? And is creativity the same as creative thinking? And is that even the same as creative thinking practices - which are my interest/focus. I think there's a lot definition assumption going on, using particular terms but actually talking about different things. For clarity, I think Sweller's question was intended as a gotcha set-up but I don't know for sure that it wasn't shed in a spirit of open minded curiosity and respect. What I am sure of is that there are thinking-practices that help to achieve the end-point outcomes of informed, reasoned, constructive, helpful arguments, strategies and solutions. And I'd like teachers to be better supported to teach those practices. I don't think this objective is contentious, but semantics complicate it, for sure.
Yes. I think it is good to discuss semantics but take the view when someone explains what they mean by a term we should except that is what they mean. We might suggest using a very different term than common usage is unhelpful but the real issue is whatever they do mean.
I take Sweller’s question to be a gotcha for people who haven’t really thought about what they mean.
I think it is quite a fair question to bring that out in the open. For people who have thought about it the answer would quickly move the discussion from semantics to something interesting.
Hi Stan, I did observe in the original piece that I mostly observed CCT in students with innate ability. At that high level anyway.
But just as we don’t usually just teach to those at the top, we provide scaffolds for all. We can’t put a cap on expectations.
Great provocation, Rebecca. I think yes, critical and creative thinking practices can be taught and fostered - and should be... developmentally appropriately, and knowledge-based, from a young age.